Landmark Nomination: Carnegie Branch Libraries of San Francisco

San Francisco Carnegie Branch Libraries Context Statement Landmark Nomination Carnegie Branch Libraries of San Francisco January, 2001 January, 2001 page 1 Tim Kelley San Francisco Carnegie Branch Libraries Context Statement ORIGINS OF THE SEVEN SAN FRANCISCO CARNEGIE BRANCH LIBRARIES 1901-1921 CARNEGIE LIBRARY GRANT PROGRAM Beginning in 1886, Andrew Carnegie, then one of the wealthiest industrialists in America, commenced what he later referred to as his “retail period” of library philanthropy. Carnegie had earlier advocated the disposal of surplus wealth to further social goals during the lifetime of the donor, a philosophy he committed to publication in 1889.1 Although he financed a variety of public facilities, including schools, swimming pools, and New York’s Carnegie Hall, Carnegie favored libraries because they encouraged the active participation of the “deserving poor” for self improvement, a process with which he strongly identified due to his own early circumstances. At first, he operated well within an established tradition of paternalistic library donorship, in which wealthy benefactors, typically on their own initiative, constructed monumental buildings in locales where they themselves either lived, did business, or were otherwise associated. Nominally dedicated to public use, these institutions were usually closely controlled by trustees drawn from the social elite and beholding to the donor. In practice, access to them was often limited. Operating expenses were met by private endowments, supplemented occasionally with public monies. However, continuity of funding was usually uncertain.2 Carnegie first donated library buildings in his Scottish birthplace, Dunfermline, followed by several Pennsylvania towns where his steel mill operations were concentrated. In Homestead, the last of these mill towns, he encountered, for the first time, public opposition to acceptance of his largesse. This resistance, strongest among union workers, stemmed from the virulent political conflict of the day between capital and labor in general, and particularly from the legacy of a bitter, violent strike and lockout that had occurred at the Carnegie Homestead Mill in 1892. During four months of conflict, armed company guards had killed several striking workers, and the Pennsylvania National Guard had been called out to protect strikebreakers. For years after this, organized labor fiercely resisted the use of Carnegie’s “tainted money” — even for public benefit.3 Stung by the growing resistance to his benevolence, Carnegie reorganized his approach to philanthropy. In 1898, he announced that he would no longer initiate library grants himself, but instead would entertain funding requests from interested 1 Andrew Carnegie, “Wealth” (1889), quoted in Kortum, Lucy Deam. “Carnegie Library Development in California and the Architecture It Produced, 1899-1921”. M.A. Thesis, Sonoma State University, 1990, p27 2 For a discussion of 19th century library philanthropy prior to Carnegie, see : Van Slyck, Abigail A. Free to All, Carnegie Libraries and American Culture: 1890-1920, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1995, Chapter One 3 Kortum, Lucy Deam. “Carnegie Library Development in California and the Architecture It Produced, 1899-1921”. M.A. Thesis, Sonoma State University, 1990, p28, also Van Slyck, 19, 102 January, 2001 page 2 Tim Kelley San Francisco Carnegie Branch Libraries Context Statement municipalities, thus shifting the initiative for the creation of a library to the community itself. In addition, he began to require successful applicants to supply the building site, and commit to levying a tax of at least 10% of the grant amount per annum, specifically allocated to the continued operation of the new library. This new system had the effect of displacing political controversy away from Carnegie himself by requiring the basic commitment, and the necessary political decisions, to be resolved at the local level prior to his involvement. At the same time, the new Carnegie system strengthened the role of elected officials and the public vis a vis unelected boards of trustees. Since, at the very least, a municipality was required to institute a tax for library support, trustees—generally drawn from the social and cultural elite—were forced to negotiate with elected officials in order to receive Carnegie money.4 In large cities, these officials were often members of recent immigrant groups who had not previously had any influence in cultural matters. With the advent of this new system, Carnegie entered his “wholesale” period of giving. Beginning with 26 libraries funded in 1898, he went on to build an average of more than sixty per year until the program effectively ended in 1917. The peak years of activity were 1901-1903, when the now-retired Carnegie financed nearly 500 libraries. In all, he was responsible for the construction of 1,681 libraries in the United States, as well as 828 others worldwide.5 Carnegie’s private secretary, James Bertram, conducted most of the day-to-day business of evaluating requests and administering grants. Although there were no rigid requirements governing the architecture of a Carnegie library, Bertram, with the support of his employer, eventually came to exercise greater and greater influence over design, in the avowed interests of cost control and the avoidance of wasted space. By 1907, Bertram began to require that building plans be submitted for prior approval. He often demanded changes in order to avoid what he saw as wasted space or money. In 1911, he codified his views on library design in a pamphlet titled “Notes on the Erection of Library Buildings.” 6 In the same year, the newly created Carnegie Corporation of New York took over administration of the library program, with Bertram remaining the principal administrator.7 EVOLVING ARCHITECTURE OF BRANCH LIBRARIES The earliest buildings designed as libraries in this country were typically monumental structures, often in the Richardsonian Romanesque style, usually located in the business or governmental center of a municipality. Their asymmetrical plans and high ceilinged spaces were ill suited to library use, but reflected a hierarchical social order in which trustees were accorded spacious, elegant private rooms; books were guarded 4 Van Slyck, Abigail A. Free to All, Carnegie Libraries and American Culture: 1890-1920, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1995, 65 5 Carnegie Corporation of New York, website, “Andrew Carnegie’s Legacy” 6 Reproduced in appendix to this report, pages 31-35 7 Kortum, 30 January, 2001 page 3 Tim Kelley San Francisco Carnegie Branch Libraries Context Statement from unsupervised public contact; and the public reading space was often dominated by a large portrait of the benefactor or founder. These buildings frequently housed non- library cultural facilities as well, such as art and natural history collections, concert rooms, or theaters.8 Carnegie’s early libraries were constructed in this mode, one even containing a gymnasium and swimming pool. However, as he entered his “wholesale period” Carnegie came to adopt the views of professional librarians, which emphasized more practical aspects of design, e.g. efficient handling of books, even heating of spaces, adequate storage and work space, etc. At the same time he espoused the theories of social Progressives concerned with the growing masses of foreign immigrants in American cities. Progressive theories saw libraries as sites for acculturation and education of both immigrants and native born members of the lower social classes. For those purposes, Progressives called for libraries located convenient to immigrant and working class neighborhoods, featuring open stacks, good lighting and ventilation, and an official attitude both welcoming and, at the same time, ordering.9 However, most early branch libraries were actually housed in rented or donated spaces—commercial storefronts, offices, or unneeded storage areas—spaces that generally lacked the qualities sought by Progressives. With his extensive program of grants, Andrew Carnegie ultimately came to be the single most influential force giving shape to the new branch library, a building type that had not previously existed. He increasingly favored the construction of branches over central libraries—after 1905 he refused to fund central libraries at all — and the branch buildings he financed were expected to conform to social-progressive concepts. These views, ultimately codified by Bertram in Notes on the Erection of Library Buildings,10 called for a symmetrical rectangular plan, a single story with basement, and windows six feet above the floor to allow continuous open shelves beneath them. On the main floor were to be a large reading room, entered through a small vestibule, and the librarian’s service desk. The library collection was to be housed in open shelves lining the walls beneath the windows, and in low freestanding shelves which could be used as room dividers without restricting the librarian’s ability to oversee the entire space from the service desk.11 The basement was to contain a public lecture room, toilets, and service spaces. Eventually, Carnegie also came to require a separate children’s reading room, again in accordance with Progressive social theory. No such detailed guidelines governed the exterior design. Instead, Notes on the 8 Van Slyck, 4 9 ibid, 65 10 Here and elsewhere, the bothersome simplified spelling used by both Carnegie and Bertram has been modified to standard usage, hence

Load more